Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[Seraphim73]

No, Rome never received its privileges because it was the capital, it received its privileges based on the fact that Rome or rather its bishop was the successor to Saint Peter. This is why Pope St. Leo refused to give his assent to canon 28:

The fathers of Chalcedon disagree with you.

Well since both EAST and WEST accept the canons of Sardica, which if you read them do indeed ascribe Rome as the final place of appeal (it was already customary to appeal to Rome prior to the making of these canons), then I would say that those canons to which you refer to are null and void, or are you suggesting that said canons have universal acceptance??? And if they do please note where and when this happened??

Sardica was a local council that was later ratified. The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon granted Constantinople greater authority than Sardica granted Rome. Which is especially telling considering Leo thought nothing about that fact. Either way an economic granting of appellate authority is a long, LONG way from what Rome claims now. Considering that your claims fall pretty flat.

 

[Seraphim73]

For canon 28 to be considered ecumenical it had to be accepted by both East and West, and that is exactly my point, i.e., the whole Church did not accept it, not least ways, the West.

Ok you are missing the point. The entire point of this thread is that we are questioning the authority of Rome as understood by Catholics today. You can’t appeal to that very authority in making your case. What the pope did or didn’t do is irrelevant. We are discussing what the rest of the Church did to show that the rest of the Church did not believe what we are told they believed. I’m sorry it is just very telling that canon 28 went into effect anyway and has stayed in effect to the present day.

 

[spina1953]

Rome was the capital of the empire, Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and also the leader of the early Church. So who gave Peter the privileges, Rome or Christ? I have yet to see anywhere that any Roman authority gave any such privileges to the Bishops of Rome. IOW’s who said to Peter and his successors I give you the privileges over the whole Church because Rome is the capital? and you are in Rome. it seems to me that from Peter onwards till the 300’s AD nearly every Pope or Bishop of Rome was martyred. Does not sound to me that Rome accorded any such privileges to the Bishop who is also the head of the Church. I have not read anywhere of any Roman emperor gave the Bishop of Rome or the Church in Rome privileges or authority over the whole Church.

Peter was the leader long before he ever went to Rome. So to my mind Rome had nothing to do with Peter being the leader on the early Church, it was given to him by Christ Himself. Just as the rest of the Apostles passed on their authority to others so too did Peter pass on His unique authority as keeper of the keys given to him by Christ to others to lead as he did.

 

[Seraphim73]

Rome was the capital of the empire, Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and also the leader of the early Church. So who gave Peter the privileges, Rome or Christ? I have yet to see anywhere that any Roman authority gave any such privileges to the Bishops of Rome. IOW’s who said to Peter and his successors I give you the privileges over the whole Church because Rome is the capital? and you are in Rome. it seems to me that from Peter onwards till the 300’s AD nearly every Pope or Bishop of Rome was martyred. Does not sound to me that Rome accorded any such privileges to the Bishop who is also the head of the Church. I have not read anywhere of any Roman emperor gave the Bishop of Rome or the Church in Rome privileges or authority over the whole Church.

Peter was the leader long before he ever went to Rome. So to my mind Rome had nothing to do with Peter being the leader on the early Church, it was given to him by Christ Himself. Just as the rest of the Apostles passed on their authority to others so too did Peter pass on His unique authority as keeper of the keys given to him by Christ to others to lead as he did.

You are making all the same leaps Randy did. That: Peter alone is the Rock - That fact bestows upon him authority over the other Apostles - That authority passes to bishops - The Bishop of Rome alone inherits that authority, as opposed to Antioch for example - That authority passes to every Bishop of Rome - That authority consists in personal infallibility and episcopal authority over the bishops, making him a “bishop of bishops.” Every single one of those points can be refuted from Church history.

 

[spina1953]

You are making all the same leaps Randy did. That: Peter alone is the Rock - That fact bestows upon him authority over the other Apostles - That authority passes to bishops - The Bishop of Rome alone inherits that authority, as opposed to Antioch for example - That authority passes to every Bishop of Rome - That authority consists in personal infallibility and episcopal authority over the bishops, making him a “bishop of bishops.” Every single one of those points can be refuted from Church history.

I am not making the same leaps that Randy did, I asked a question and so far not real answer to it All Bishops get their authority from the Apostles, but only peter was given the keys and I do not see any other way or manor to refute what Scripture said about Christ saying to Peter I will build my Church on you the rock, where does Christ to all the Apostles I will build my church on all of the Apostles? No where did I see that.

The problem as I see it is that the orthodox want to have each and every Bishop or Patriarch to have power over the others while wanting no other Bishop to say anything about how they run their parishes.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I am not making the same leaps that Randy did, I asked a question and so far not real answer to it All Bishops get their authority from the Apostles, but only peter was given the keys and I do not see any other way or manor to refute what Scripture said about Christ saying to Peter I will build my Church on you the rock, where does Christ to all the Apostles I will build my church on all of the Apostles? No where did I see that.

The problem as I see it is that the orthodox want to have each and every Bishop or Patriarch to have power over the others while wanting no other Bishop to say anything about how they run their parishes.

Ephesians 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

The question about what this thread is about relates to the actual exercise of authority by the Bishop of Rome in relation to the Church as a Whole.

Scriptures, History AND the Early Church clearly shows a Conciliar model of Church government.

There has been 0 authoritative documents presented that refute this reality for the first 1,000+ years.

There has been 0 authoritative documents that present a waiver/exception for the Bishop of Rome (Or any other Bishop for that effect) from the authority of the Church as a Whole.

There has been 0 authoritative documents that present a single Bishop has the authority over an Ecumenical Church Council for the first 1,000+ years.

That is what we are discussing in this thread.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Ok you are missing the point. The entire point of this thread is that we are questioning the authority of Rome as understood by Catholics today. You can’t appeal to that very authority in making your case. What the pope did or didn’t do is irrelevant. We are discussing what the rest of the Church did to show that the rest of the Church did not believe what we are told they believed. I’m sorry it is just very telling that canon 28 went into effect anyway and has stayed in effect to the present day.

Which BTW Rome later accepts in the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215AD with the caveats added **after **the Great Schism in regards to Rome.

[Canon 5. The dignity of the patriarchal sees](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum12-2.htm#The dignity of the patriarchal sees)

*Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree, with the approval of this sacred universal synod, that after the Roman church, which through the Lord’s disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful, the church of Constantinople shall have the first place, the church of Alexandria the second place, the church of Antioch the third place, and the church of Jerusalem the fourth place, each maintaining its own rank. Thus after their pontiffs have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the sign of the fullness of the pontifical office, and have taken an oath of fidelity and obedience to him they may lawfully confer the pallium on their own suffragans, receiving from them for themselves canonical profession and for the Roman church the promise of obedience. They may have a standard of the Lord’s cross carried before them anywhere except in the city of Rome or wherever there is present the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of the apostolic dignity. In all the provinces subject to their jurisdiction let appeal be made to them, when it is necessary, except for appeals made to the apostolic see, to which all must humbly defer. *

 

[spina1953]

Ephesians 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

The question about what this thread is about relates to the actual exercise of authority by the Bishop of Rome in relation to the Church as a Whole.

Scriptures, History AND the Early Church clearly shows a Conciliar model of Church government.

There has been 0 authoritative documents presented that refute this reality for the first 1,000+ years.

There has been 0 authoritative documents that present a waiver/exception for the Bishop of Rome (Or any other Bishop for that effect) from the authority of the Church as a Whole.

There has been 0 authoritative documents that present a single Bishop has the authority over an Ecumenical Church Council for the first 1,000+ years.

That is what we are discussing in this thread.

OK if that is so true give us the sources that say that.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

OK if that is so true give us the sources that say that.

So you have not read all the documents I presented in posts #5-9?

 

[Seraphim73]

I am not making the same leaps that Randy did, I asked a question and so far not real answer to it All Bishops get their authority from the Apostles, but only peter was given the keys and I do not see any other way or manor to refute what Scripture said about Christ saying to Peter I will build my Church on you the rock, where does Christ to all the Apostles I will build my church on all of the Apostles? No where did I see that.

The problem as I see it is that the orthodox want to have each and every Bishop or Patriarch to have power over the others while wanting no other Bishop to say anything about how they run their parishes.

There is no need to refute Peter being given the keys. Many would say that the rock is Peter’s confession and that all of the Apostles received the keys. That’s including saints that Catholics often cite as supporting their claims. Here is a well known example that I bet you’ve never heard before.

“For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom with much confidence, this man comes forward to us now; not as an actor of a play, not hiding his head with a mask, (for he has another sort of words to speak,) nor mounting a platform, nor striking the stage with his foot, nor dressed out with apparel of gold, but he enters wearing a robe of inconceivable beauty.” -St John Chrysostom Homily on the Gospel of John

newadvent.org/fathers/240101.htm

So the good Doctor of the Church doesn’t agree with you that Peter alone received the keys. If I was to use Catholic apologetic methods I could use this quote to argue St John was infallible and him and his successors have supreme authority over all of us. But as I said that’s not really all that relevant except to show that the modern Catholic interpretation was by no means unanimous as some would have us believe. Far from it actually. But you have to show that the keys equal personal infallibility and immediate and supreme authority over the entire Church.

 

[josie_L]

Ok you are missing the point. The entire point of this thread is that we are questioning the authority of Rome as understood by Catholics today. You can’t appeal to that very authority in making your case. What the pope did or didn’t do is irrelevant. We are discussing what the rest of the Church did to show that the rest of the Church did not believe what we are told they believed. I’m sorry it is just very telling that canon 28 went into effect anyway and has stayed in effect to the present day.

The pope is part of the Church so he is not irrevelant, i.e., what previous popes have stated prior to the schism will help us to understand what they thought their position in the church was. Moreover, canon 28 WAS NOT ACCEPTED IN THE WEST prior to the schism.

 

[josie_L]

Which BTW Rome later accepts in the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215AD with the caveats added **after **the Great Schism in regards to Rome.

[Canon 5. The dignity of the patriarchal sees](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum12-2.htm#The dignity of the patriarchal sees)

*Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree, with the approval of this sacred universal synod, that after the Roman church, which through the Lord’s disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful, the church of Constantinople shall have the first place, the church of Alexandria the second place, the church of Antioch the third place, and the church of Jerusalem the fourth place, each maintaining its own rank. Thus after their pontiffs have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the sign of the fullness of the pontifical office, and have taken an oath of fidelity and obedience to him they may lawfully confer the pallium on their own suffragans, receiving from them for themselves canonical profession and for the Roman church the promise of obedience. They may have a standard of the Lord’s cross carried before them anywhere except in the city of Rome or wherever there is present the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of the apostolic dignity. In all the provinces subject to their jurisdiction let appeal be made to them, when it is necessary, except for appeals made to the apostolic see, to which all must humbly defer. *

Yes, because there was a Latin patriarch in Constantinople at that time.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There is no admission to anything Randy. There are facts and interpretations.

The current state of the Bishop of Rome is absent from the first thousand years +. That is as obvious as the keys.

That is a separate issue. Related, but separate. You need to read The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 by Adrian Fortescue.

I bought it, read it, and condensed it for you previously, but perhaps reading the whole thing will benefit you. It’s only about 100 pages or so in length, and Fr. Fortescue will explain to you what you think is missing prior to the Great Schism.

But first things first.

Jesus is a king.
Jesus re-established the office of the royal steward in His kingdom.
In the Davidic kingdoms, the office of the steward was a perpetual office that survived the death of the steward himself.
Jesus will never die again; His kingship is eternal.
He is served by a steward in an office that is also perpetual.
The office of the steward in Jesus’ kingdom survives the death of any one office holder.

Now, there should not be much that we disagree about on any one of those points. Maybe the fourth point, but even that should not cause anyone who accepts apostolic succession any problem.

The authority of the Father and Son is expressed in both Matt 16 and Matt 18. The Catholic position is in violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction. The bindings cannot contradict themselves. The Catholic binding is in contradiction to the binding of the Church as a Whole.

No. The Church as a whole is only infallible when united to its head, the Bishop of Rome. Neither Catholic nor Orthodox bishops are individually infallible.

When united, there CAN BE NO contradiction. When divided, only the pope remains individually infallible.

As you clearly admit, Councils are not your forte. You really need to read and study them more [if] you want to truly understand how the Whole Church operates when it is united.

Really? Such study does not seem to have benefited you very much.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,

What is the difference between “to lead” and “to rule”?

My answer is in something I wrote and shared with you previously. Pay close attention to the Greek terms explained a few paragraphs down, okay?

No skimming!

Peter’s Role as Vicar of Christ’s Church Proved from Scripture

In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed (bosko) my lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of (poimanao) my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed (bosko) my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

Unfortunately, many non-Catholics object to the Catholic understanding that Peter was given this unique leadership position, and they cite a passage from earlier in this same Gospel wherein Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” (John 10:11-16) Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?

Of course, Jesus is God, and He is clearly capable of taking care of His own flock – even after He ascends to heaven. So, why does He appoint Peter to this role? Obviously, all sheep belong to Christ, and they do not cease to belong to Jesus after the ascension. Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. Jesus commissions Peter to act as His “stand-in” or “vicar” after the ascension. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.

Because of the implications of this earthly authority and the unique Catholic claims for the papacy, non-Catholics seek alternative explanations for Jesus’ words. One attempt is to claim that Peter simply has the same authority to care for the flock of Christ that all of the other apostles had. However, this argument fails for two reasons.

**First, the extent of the authority Jesus gave to Peter can be seen quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is *bosko *– a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is *poimanao *– the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in passages such as Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Peter, like Jesus, is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence. **

While it may be argued that any shepherd would have similar responsibilities for his sheep and that the Bible is full of passages using the relationship between sheep and shepherd as a metaphor for our relationship with God, in the context of the New Testament, only Peter received this unique appointment directly from Christ Himself. Jesus took great care to identify Peter’s new responsibility as head of the Church with His own role as Head of the Body, the Church. No other Apostle received this focus.

Second, in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter was singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. The passage is as follows:

Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. 33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

In Luke 22:31-32, Satan sought to destroy all of the Apostles, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter alone that Peter might strengthen all of the other Apostles whose faith would be shaken, as well. Clearly, Peter is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all. That is a special ministry – the ministry of the vicarious shepherd. No other Apostle is given the responsibility for caring for the Twelve in this way, and this assignment is all the more significant when we consider that in the following verses (v. 33-34), Jesus predicts Peter’s three-fold denial. Despite Jesus’ foreknowledge of Peter’s denials, Jesus prays for and assigns to Peter the task of caring for the others. This was powerfully echoed in Jesus’ final time on earth as He walked with Peter along the seashore in John’s Gospel.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not Sola Cephas.

Peter AND Paul were in Rome.

A better argument for Rome is made by Dr Marshall in the Eternal City.

Sola Cephas is like Sola Scriptura: Absent.

And no Catholic disagrees with this.

So, that’s one less argument that you have against Catholicism…they are being dismantled one by one.

What happens when you run out?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ok you are missing the point. The entire point of this thread is that we are questioning the authority of Rome as understood by Catholics today. You can’t appeal to that very authority in making your case. What the pope did or didn’t do is irrelevant. We are discussing what the rest of the Church did to show that the rest of the Church did not believe what we are told they believed. I’m sorry it is just very telling that canon 28 went into effect anyway and has stayed in effect to the present day.

Uh, no.

The pope is the head of the Church, the vicarious shepherd of the flock. Or perhaps you wish to open your Bible to John 21 and explain why Peter is NOT left in charge of tending and caring for the one flock of Christ.

No?

So, what is irrelevant is what the rest of the flock did when they refused to follow their God-given shepherd.

And that, my schismatic friend, is the name of *that *tune.

 

[josie_L]

The fathers of Chalcedon disagree with you.

No, a minority of self aggrandizing bishops disagree with me. Moreover, at the ecumenical council of Ephesus, Philip the Presbyter stated:

Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable Synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members by our [or your] holy voices,(1) ye joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle. And since now our mediocrity, after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, has arrived, we ask that ye give order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy Synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination.

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince ( exarkos ) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation ( qemelios ) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Coelestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place m this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc.

As you can see, Rome was not preeminent because it was once at the epicenter of the empire but rather because it was the direct successor to Peter, as such, Constantinople not being an Apostolic or Petrine see, used secular reasoning in order to supercede the Apostolic and Petrine sees of Antioch and Alexandria (moreover canon 28 invalidated the canons of Nicea).

Sardica was a local council that was later ratified.

By both Eastern and Western churches, hence making it universally binding on the whole church.

The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon granted Constantinople greater authority than Sardica granted Rome.

No, it did not, in fact, Sardica did not grant anything, i.e., it only formalized what had already been custom, i.e., appeals to the pope in Rome from clerics throughout the universal church were already in place and in practice.

Which is especially telling considering Leo thought nothing about that fact. Either way an economic granting of appellate authority is a long, LONG way from what Rome claims now. Considering that your claims fall pretty flat.

Pope St. Leo, along with many other saints/fathers of the Church would attest that the see of Rome was and always shall be head of the earthly church due to Scripture and Tradition, and not because of canon law. And I never said that papal authority did not increase over time, I’m simply making the case that papal supremacy actually did exist prior to the schism.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You are making all the same leaps Randy did. That: Peter alone is the Rock - That fact bestows upon him authority over the other Apostles - That authority passes to bishops - The Bishop of Rome alone inherits that authority, as opposed to Antioch for example - That authority passes to every Bishop of Rome - That authority consists in personal infallibility and episcopal authority over the bishops, making him a “bishop of bishops.” Every single one of those points can be refuted from Church history.

Gregory the Great (540 - 604), saint, pope, and doctor of the Church would have denied that the title “universal bishop” could be applied to anyone, himself included, if by that term one meant there was only one bishop for the whole world and that all other “bishops” were bishops in name only, with no real authority of their own. Such a distorted version of the biblical model of bishops is incompatible with Catholic teaching.

But that isn’t to say that the title didn’t – and doesn’t – have a proper sense of which Gregory approved. If meant in the sense that the Bishop of Rome is the leader of all the bishops, the title is correct. If it means he is the only bishop and all the other “bishops” are not really successors to the apostles, it’s false.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There is no need to refute Peter being given the keys. Many would say that the rock is Peter’s confession and that all of the Apostles received the keys.

Yes, but they would be wrong.

I have provided both Protestant AND Orthodox scholarship to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Peter is the rock.

Additionally, we are not arguing about whether the other apostles received genuine authority from Jesus in Matthew 18. They DID!

But you have yet to show a single verse which indicates that the symbol of the office of Chief Steward was given by your Lord and Savior to anyone but Simon Peter.

This, of course, is because no such verse exists.

YOU KNOW THIS YET CONTINUE TO ARGUE.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

And no Catholic disagrees with this.

So, that’s one less argument that you have against Catholicism…they are being dismantled one by one.

What happens when you run out?

I run out?

This is not about me or you, Randy.

It’s about facts and interpretations. Facts don’t run out. Interpretations… It’s best to stay consistent (1 Tim 3:15-16) with the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth: The Church.